I have taught at universities in the US, the UK, Germany and China and I have published in numerous academic journals. I was active in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s demanding equal rights for Blacks. NOW I SUPPORT CIVIL RIGHTS AND DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL CITIZENS, INCLUDING WHITES AND MEN.
(For some of my more formal writing, go to http://www.anthonyflood.com/murray.htm you can find photos, etc.) For most of my writing, see Tulane University's Library, Special Collections.

Monday, August 27, 2018

INDUSTRY
IN THE 1930s and 1940s (Roseville, CA.: Forum, an Imprint of Prima
Pub., c1998)

Written
by Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley

Rev.
by Hugh Murray

There
is much interesting material in Billingsley's party book, but after
reading it, I am convinced it should have covered much more. For
example, Billingsley practically begins his account with the creation
of the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League (HANL), a communist-front group in
1936. However, the Depression began in 1929, and by the early 1930s,
the Communist Party made strident efforts to organize sharecroppers
in the South; to organize the unemployed into councils that would
restore the furniture of evicted tenants into their former homes; to
organize unions beyond the AFL's craft associations; and especially
to appeal to Blacks to end lynching and racist “justice” in the
South. One case illustrated the Party's new militancy regarding
Southern injustice – the Scottsboro, Ala. rape cases that began in
1931. The Communist-front International Labor Defense (ILD) wrestled
the liberal National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP) to defend the 9 “boys” accused of raping two young
white women while riding a freight train, on which they were all
hoboing. Eight of the 9 were quickly found guilty and sentenced to
death; the 14-year-old merely received a long sentence. ILD
attorneys appealed to the US Supreme Court, and when they won new
trials, the ILD hired Samuel Leibowitz, a Democrat and noted attorney
to defend the youths.

At
the same time they provided a high-powered legal defense, the ILD and
the Communist movement turned the case into a world-wide cause
celebre, even having the mother of 2 of the boys tour Europe to
expose America's racist justice. In 1932 Mother Wright addressed
radical gatherings in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Britain, and
Moscow, urging support for the young Blacks who might again face the
death penalty. Petitions demanding freedom for the defendants were
signed by many of the leading literary figures of the time, as well
as Albert Einstein, Mme. Sun Yat Sen, and in America, Chief Red
Cloud. Poetry from Muriel Rukeyser and Langston Hughes celebrated
the Scottsboro boys. A play, “They Shall Not Die!” almost
recreating one of the court rooms with testimony, ran on Broadway
with a lengthy, rave review from the New York Times. But there was
no Scottsboro movie.

At
the 2nd trial, one of the 2 white women “victims,”
recanted her accusations of rape against the Blacks; now maintaining
that the jazz found in her by the doctor was the result of a tryst
with her white boy friend the night before the train ride, in a hobo
camp in Chattanooga. The other woman stuck to her story that she had
been raped by 6 of the Blacks. She proclaimed she was a victim, even
when Atty. Leibowitz tried to punch holes in her story. When pressed
under oath about certain details, Victoria Price simply
“disremembered.”

During
the trial, the attending physician asked to speak with the judge in
private. While officers held the door to the men's room shut, the
doctor explained to the judge why he thought that the 2 women had not
been raped. They had semen in them, but during the examination they
were giggling and laughing, not the normal reaction after being raped
by 6 strangers each. The judge, James Horton, instructed the doctor
to repeat this on the stand under oath. The doctor explained that to
do so would ruin his reputation and his practice. He would not so
testify, and if called to the stand he would lie about it. The
doctor was not called. The jury found the Black defendant guilty.
However, Judge Horton voided the verdict, and there would have to be
a 3rd round of Scottsboro trials. The government found a
new judge, and Judge Horton was defeated in his bid for re-election,
undoubtedly a consequence of his voiding the popular guilty verdict.

The
new judge was not as lenient as Judge Horton. He would not allow any
probing into the past history of the women or any implied insults
against their character. Modern feminists might cheer his shielding
of the female accuser from the harsh questioning by Atty. Leibowitz.
The Daily Worker had a less favorable view of the judge who upheld
the chivalrous notion of the “victim” - the DW called him Judge
Ku Klux Callahan. Leibowitz was limited by the judge's rulings as to
how far he could delve into Ms. Price's statements that sometimes
contradicted other evidence. And the other woman, Ruby Bates, did
not want to return to the hostile atmosphere in Alabama, so her
previous testimony denying any rape was merely read into the record.
In the summary before the jury, the new prosecutor of the case,
Alabama's Atty General made the issue clear, “Don't sell Alabama
justice to Jew money from New York.” The jury did not, and found
the Blacks once again guilty. More appeals to the US Supreme Court,
which the defense won. More trials. The case went on for years.
But still no movie was made.

This
was the major Communist issue from 1931 through 1934 and beyond.
Billingsley quotes Communist screen writer Dalton Trumbo writing in
1946 that while communists usually had the power to veto production
of films critical of the Party, they did not have sufficient power to
have their own pro-communist films produced. (p. 92-93) The notion
of a film where 2 white women falsely accuse 9 young Blacks of rape,
and the Blacks are defended by Communists, - who would have made such
a film in the 1930s? And who would watch such a film? Even around
1961 in New Orleans, “Raisin in the Sun” did not play the large
white movie theaters, and when a white friend and I went to the
Carver, a Black theater, to see it, they would not sell us tickets to
enter.

However,
Scottsboro and films would have wider repercussions. Hollywood was
the center of the most popular films world-wide, but especially after
the arrival of the talkies, national studios produced films for their
constituents in their native languages, and dialects. Germany's
Babelsberg had created some of the most important films of the silent
1920s, but continued into the sound era with “Three Penny Opera,”
“Blue Angel,” and others. They continued to make startling films
even after many from their film colony fled Germany for Hollywood.
France and Britain were centers of the world's largest empires, and
they both sought to quench the thirst for films about and in the
languages of empire.

And
on to the London stage, and shortly after, the British film stages,
appeared the American All-American foot ball player from Princeton,
valedictorian there, a man with a law degree from Columbia U. with a
deep baritone voice he used to sing Negro spirituals amid his
blossoming acting career. The Black American, Paul Robeson, would
now star in British films about Africa. He would also befriend some
of the extras in these movies, often young Africans studying at
British universities. In this way Robeson encountered Nnamdi Azikiwe
and Johnstone Kenyatta, and later in different contexts, Kwame
Nkrumah and the Indian, Jawaharlal Nehru. It was the 1930s, the
Scottsboro rape cases dragged on, and to publicize the injustice, a
Scottsboro Defence Committee was organized in Britain, with 2
co-chairs: Paul Robeson and Johnstone Kenyatta.

In
1935 the Hollywood musical “Show Boat” would hit the screens.
Robeson had been popular enough so that the character of Joe was
written into the stage version and then the film version just for
Robeson. He had played it on the New York and London stages, and now
in the movie in which he sang “Old Man River.” In 1939 Robeson
returned to the US, and in the early 1940s, starred in Othello, which
proved to be the longest-running Shakespearean play on Broadway till
that time (and that record may stand today). However, because of the
Hollywood blacklist of Reds, when MGM remade “Show Boat” in 1954,
Robeson the radical was replaced by another baritone. When Orson
Welles produced a filmed version of Othello in 1951, the Moor Wells
played was quite light skinned. A very black Robeson would have been
as out of place in this production as his politics. A Soviet version
of 1956 also de-emphacized the racial aspects of the play. In 1965
the British did make a filmed version of the play with a Black
Othello, but the Black was Laurence Olivier in make-up. If Robeson
was being denied movie opportunities because of the anti-red
Blacklist, he was seeking for other opportunities.

When
Robeson returned to America in 1939, he was quite popular. He sang a
patriotic cantata, “What is America to Me?” (“The House I Live
In” is the official title) on CBS to a wide audience. He was
acting in Othello. And he was speaking to young Blacks recently
organized as the Southern Negro Youth Congress (the first “snick”),
which aimed to increase civil rights. (In 1949, SNYC would be placed
on Pres. Truman's Atty General's list of subversive organizations.)
During WWII Robeson's sympathies for the Soviets, who were fighting
and finally defeating the German Nazis, was often warmly received.
President Roosevelt rhimself eferred to Stalin as “Uncle Joe,”
and FDR's Vice President, Henry Wallace, along with many others in
FDR's administration were openly friendly to the USSR. For the
presidential election of 1944 conservative Democrats demanded that
FDR replace Wallace on the ticket, and after a struggle at the
Democratic convention, Harry Truman won the nomination for
vice-president on the ticket. Wallace was demoted to Sec. of
Commerce. Soon after the election, Roosevelt died and Truman became
president. Then VE day, followed a few months later by the atomic
bombing of 2 Japanese cities and the entrance into the war of the
USSR; Japan sued for peace.

Billingsley
points out, that the cold war began almost immediately. Billingsley
connects the article by French Communist leader Jacques Duclos,
echoing the thoughts of Stalin, that American CP leader, Earl
Browder, had erred when he dissolved the CPUSA, and Browder was wrong
when he implied that the friendliness of the wartime alliance would
continue. Browder was ousted, and William Z. Foster, a hardliner
replaced him as head of the American party. America was now viewed
as incipiently fascist, and more determined Ccommunist struggle was
required. So the Communist controlled unions in Hollywood looked for
jurisdictional overlaps, where the red unions could push for open
disputes with the non-communist organizations. The Cold War in
Hollywood was evident by spring 1945 when the red-led CSU began a
strike with picket lines to gain power in the film industry.

And
in Europe, things were not returning to the pre-war era. Winston
Churchill, who had led Britain throughout the war, was defeated at
the polls by the Labour Party which discussed dismantling the British
Empire! The chastened Churchill in 1946 visited the US and gave a
speech asserting that an “iron curtain” had been thrust down by
the Soviets, dividing Europe from Stettin to Triest. While many like
Truman listened with interest, others like Sec. Wallace thought
Churchill was simply trying to bolster the British Empire and promote
rearmament at the expense of peace.

It
was determined that the peace-loving Americans should take a stand,
and to lead them, Henry Wallace showed his willingness. Truman fired
Wallace from the Cabinet, and Wallace sought to create a new
Progressive Party (PP), that would opposed the imperialisms of
Britain, France, the Dutch, etc. It would strive for racial harmony,
economic justice, even mild socialism. Above all, it would strive
for peace with the USSR and hailed new “reform” elements fighting
for power in China and elsewhere in Asia. To co-chair the new PP
(which had the full support of the older, smaller, Communist Party,
noted entertainer Paul Robeson accepted that post. The left-wing CIO
unions supported Wallace, while the majority of the CIO stuck with
Truman. Wallace gained the support of many civil rights
organizations, the ILD, the National Negro Congress, SNYC, Robeson's
Council on African Affairs, the Southern Conference on Human Welfare,
etc. The NAACP, by contrast, had Democratic Pres. Harry Truman
address its convention. When the only Black founder of the NAACP, W
E B Du Bois, announced he was supporting Wallace rather than Truman,
the NAACP fired Du Bois. With this purge, the NAACP essentially
became a Democratic Party front group but it still pretends to be a
non-partisan organization for tax purposes. Du Bois, openly
Progressive, hostile to Western imperialism, supportive of
anti-colonial revolutions, found that he was not even rehired at
Atlanta U. The Progressive Party candidates campaigned in the South;
it was the civil rights movement before the official movement. Many
names of people involved in civil rights activities of the mid-1950s
and 60s first came to prominence by partaking in civil rights
connected with the campaign for Wallace and the PP. Even the enemies
of civil rights. When PP Vice-Presidential candidate, Sen. Glenn
Taylor visited Birmingham to campaign, he was scheduled to address a
meeting of the SNYC, but Police Commissioner Bull Connor had him
arrested when he entered the colored entrance of the building.
Wallace, Taylor, Robeson were defying segregation laws when they
campaigned in the South.

However,
in November 1948 Wallace and the PP performed much below their
expected vote (as did the anticipated winner, Thomas Dewey).
Originally some thought Wallace might receive 5 to 8 million votes;
he received only 1.1 million or 2.4%. Unions and organizations that
supported the PP were now classified as subversive, and, especially
in the South, jobs were lost. When Robeson scheduled a concert in a
park outside of NYC, state troopers looked on as anti-Communists
threw stones at the cars, blocking traffic, injuring many, and
serving notice that Robeson, or any who sympathized with the
Communists, would not be allowed to perform. The irony is that as
Robeson thus began a period of isolation and lack of influence,
blacklist, and denial of a passport, some of those whom he mentored
were on the rise. Nkrumah was active in the Gold Coast, and when it
declared independence from Britain in 1957, Nkrumah would become the
first leader of the new nation of Ghana. Similarly, Robeson's
friend, Azikiwe would soon be the leader of the new independent
nation of Nigeria. It would take longer for Johnstone. He returned
to Africa and was soon involved in a major uprising against British
rule. But Johnstone, now known as Jomo, would give something back to
the English – a new word, Mau Mau. When Hollywood made a film in
1957, “Something of Value,” it pitted 2 native Kenyans against
each other – one, Rock Hudson, son of a white landowner, and the
other, Sidney Poitier, a Black Kenyan who grew up on the land.
Raised as brothers, they will end in a deadly struggle, one for
Britain, the other for the Mau Mau. Of course, in the Hollywood
film, the revolutionary Mau Mau leader looses. Yet, reality does
not always follow Hollywood scripts. In time, Mau Mau leader Jomo
Kenyatta would be recognized as the leader of an independent Kenya. (In
the 1950s and 60s, with the collapse of colonialism, most assumed
that the newly independent nations would soon rise from the Third
World to the prosperity and democracy of the First. However, for
many of the new nations, independence would soon mean corruption,
starvation, return to slavery, and slaughter.)

Just
as Robeson had nurtured African students in Britain in the 1930s, the
CPUSA had nurtured Black artists in New York and beyond. Richard
Wright was encouraged to write by the CP, and included real
Communists, like Mary Dalton, in some of his fiction. The party
would review his books, help in finding publishers, etc. But by the
end of WWII, Wright had turned against the CP, and one of his essays
was included in the anti-communist volume, “The God that Failed.”
Claude McKay had earlier left the CP for the Roman Catholic church.
George Padmore had left the CP for a more Black Nationalist approach.
C L R James, author of the important history of the slave rebellion
in Haiti, was a Trotskyist, a heretic, and the CP sought to isolate
and destroy his influence. But in New York there were those in the
CP or close to it who would become influential – Lorraine
Hansberry, Lena Horne, Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier. Some of
these would shoot to stardom with the Civil Rights Movement of the
late 50s and 60s. Did the CP have such a group to encourage Blacks
in Hollywood? I suspect they must have had special outreach for
Blacks and Hispanics, but there is no mention of this in Billingsley.

There
were 2 films “inspired” by the Scottsboro case, but they they
were not produced until the 1950s, and the case was camouflaged to
the point of distortion. In the Southern Gothic “To Kill a
Mockingbird” (1962), which centers on the white attorney, appointed
by a local Alabama judge, to defend a Black man accused of raping a
white woman. Gregory Peck played the attorney. Alabama in the 1930s
and long after was a segregated society. At one point, Peck must sit
guard at the jail, as local townspeople want to lynch his client.
With some ice breaking by his young daughter, Peck is able to get the
crowd to leave, and leave his client alone. But there are threats
against Peck, too, for defending the Black. Peck's skills in court
readily expose the contradictions in the woman's story. But when on
the stand, the accused Black admits that she kissed him when he had
helped her chop wood, a taboo was broken. The Black was found
guilty. Soon Peck is informed that when being transferred to another
jail, the Black was shot dead while trying to escape. Soon
thereafter, at Halloween, Peck's children, in costumes, are attacked,
by one, and then another man intervenes to help them. The father of
the accusing woman is later found dead in that area of the forest;
presumably he was trying to harm the children, while a mentally
crippled neighbor came to their defense and saved them. This was a
good story, set in 1930s Alabama, but a long way from the Scottsboro
case. Though the Harper Lee novel is often assigned in schools,
though it avoids many of the issues raised by Scottsboro, it does
show the difficulties of achieving justice in the deep South of the
1930s.

A
closer rendition of the Scottsboro case was made earlier, in 1955,
when “Trial” starred Glenn Ford. The scene is 1947 California
and a Mexican, Angel Chavez, who attends the same school as an Anglo
sees her on the beach and they talk. She has rheumatic heart
problems, and when his hands wander onto her, she collapses, dies.
Chavez is charged with felony rape and murder. As she was underage,
even if she had consented, it would have been rape, and she died, so
felony murder. The locals want to lynch the Mexican, but authorities
assure the crowd he will be executed after his trial. Meanwhile,
Ford, a professor of law, is now required to gain court-room
experience to retain his teaching post. The naive professor is hired
by a small law firm led by Atty. Castle to defend the young Chavez.
Castle enlists Chavez's mother to help in raising funds for the
cause. He even demands Ford come to New York to appear at a rally.
It is a large rally for the Peoples Party (Progressive Party), and a
W E B DuBois character makes a rare appearance in a Hollywood film –
as the senile de la Farge who is to keep the crowd awake droning the
party line before the main event and while most are still finding
their seats. The cynics then make pleas for this cause and that.
Angel Chavez's is a new cause, so Ford's speech and the mother's will
bring in the cash. Ford is suddenly aware he is dealing with
Communists. Castle's secretary explains that Castle's goal is not to
save Chavez, but to maximize the publicity when he is convicted, to
show the world America's murderous, racist judicial system. Too
complex to reveal the maneuvers here, but to summarize, Ford is able
to foil the communist plot by preventing Chavez's execution. Both
films are quite interesting, but in one, there are no Communists; in
the other the Communists are the villains. In reality, the
Communists saved the Scottsboro boys from execution.

It
is noteworthy that in the US, Hollywood has never produced a film
directly about the Scottsboro case. It would be as unacceptable
today to Hollywood values as it was in the 1930s, though for
different reasons. The case was built upon the lies of 2 white
women. But as early as the 1991 Senate hearings to confirm Supreme
Court nominee Clarence Thomas, and Anita Hill's allegations of sexual
harassment against him, National Public Radio's Nina Totenberg
assured listeners “Women do not make up stories.” In the era of
“Me2!” women accuse, and men are considered guilty until proven
innocent. For a man to challenge a woman on the issue, these days,
only provides further proof of his guilt. Scottsboro is as
politically incorrect today as it was in 1931.

Communists
nurtured Black artists and intellectuals in the Harlem Renaissance
and during the Depression in New York. Billingsley mentions nothing
about such groups in Hollywood. I suspect they existed. Same with
Hispanic groups. During the Progressive Party campaign of 1948 for
the Wallace-Taylor ticket, there was a group organized, Bachelors for
Wallace. Harry Hay, a Communist and a Progressive was a part of
this. After the election, he wanted to organize a homosexual group.
To do so he dropped out of the CP and founded the Mattachine Society,
one of the first gay rights groups. While some communists might have
welcomed such outreach, others probably deemed it more an
embarrassment than an opportunity.

The
point is, Billingsley fails to mention any of this kind of organizing
in his book. He does mention several times the comedienne and
actress Lucille Ball. But even this is deficient. When Ball
registered to vote in California in 1936, she registered as a
Communist. She did it again in 1938. Now, in Billingsley's volume,
we learn that Lucille Ball was one of the first to cross the picket
lines established by the communist run union the CSU in 1945.
Billingsley also lists Ball voting in 1948 for Truman and the
Democrats rather than Wallace and the PP. In 1951 “I Love Lucy”
became the most popular program on television, and in 1953 members of
HUAC quietly interviewed her at her home. She explained her
grandfather had been a Eugene V Debs Socialist, and he was living
with her in the mid 1930s and to keep the old man happy, she so
registered. A party education program was held at her home, but she
was not there at the time. Her husband said the old man might read
editorials in the Daily Worker. Had she been a member of the CP, she
would not have crossed the picket line in 1945 nor voted for Truman
in 1948. Around 1953, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover pronounced “I
Love Lucy” his favorite program.

But
there is another aspect to the story. Lucille Ball is married to
Desi Arnez, in real life, and in the comedy series. In 1948 when at
least 30 of the 48 states forbid interracial marriages, there was
Lucy and Desi. Most of the laws were to prevent black-white
marriages, but in some states; Asian-white or Amerindian white. Most
states had no category of Hispanics – they would be deemed black or
white. Nevertheless, the Desilu production was pushing the envelop.
Desi had a strong accent on the program. He did not look or sound
regular American. And in an era when they could not even use the
word “pregnant” on television, that couple was unique for the
1950s and long after. One of the surprises of when I moved to New
York City in the early 1970s was encountering married, interracial
couples. These were rare, so rare in I my experience, that I don't
want to over-generalize, but in each case, the couples were Party
members or in the Left-wing circles (and may have been in the Party
when they married). Might the left-wing background of Lucille Ball
have allowed her to open to the possibility of having a beau who was
a Desi? Might that couple appearing weekly on the most popular
television program of the early 1950s have changed the nation's
attitudes on marriage? Of
course, in 1961 in Hawaii an interracial couple married, Ann Dunham
and Barack Obama, Sr.

When
the Hollywood 10 Communists were blacklisted, they raised funds to
create their own movie. With the help of a progressive union,
Herbert Biberman directed the 1954 film, “Salt of the Earth,”
about a union strike in New Mexico. When the miners of a zinc
company are forbidden by a court injunction to man the picket lines,
their wives “manned” the lines instead. This caused some marital
conflicts, as the men thought it inappropriate for women to do the
men's protest. Most of the strikers are Mexican Americans, and they
believe they are not treated equally with the Anglo miners.
Eventually, the zinc mining company negotiates with the striking
miners. The International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers,
that had supported Henry Wallace in 1948 and was subsequently
expelled from the CIO, sponsored the film. Paul Jarrico produced it.
He is mentioned in Billingsley's book as one of the alleged
Communists. Another blacklisted actress was considered for a leading
role, Gale Sondergaard, the wife of Biberman, but instead the leading
roles went to Mexican Americans. Most of the cast were non-actors,
and some had partaken in the strike that formed the bases of the
plot. The female lead, Rosaura
Revueltas, was even deported. The film was blacklisted and few saw
“Salt” in the 1950s. It was not Hollywood, but New Mexico. Yet,
it was the Hollywood Party that made the film, and should have been
discussed more by Billingsley. It also demonstrates the Party
willingness to spotlight racial as well as class issues.

The
Party also viewed “Salt of the Earth” as a pro-union response to
Elia Kazan's “On the Waterfront.” Kazan had been a member of the
CP in New York in the mid 1930s, but broke with it. And when called
before the House Un-American Activities Committee after WWII, Kazan
was a friendly witness and named the names of former comrades. Kazan
went on to make some of the best films of the era (some would judge,
of all time). The Communists and their supporters despised Kazan,
not just in the 1950s, but decades later. Billingsley writes that
the Academy Aware organization had a special program, Hollywood
Remembers the Blacklist, some 50 years after the investigation of
Communists in the film industry. In effect, it was a celebration of
the defiance of the HUAC, a condemnation of “McCarthyism” (though
the blacklist preceded Sen. McCarthy's investigations). At the event
the elderly who had been blacklisted won applause, and major stars
read some of the defiant statements of the blacklisted who had since
died. Almost no one mentioned that the many of the (if not all)
blacklisted had indeed been Reds. So by 1997 the blacklisted could
feel vindicated.

Kazan
also directed a labor film released in 1954, “On the Waterfront.”
This concerns corruption in the International Longshoremen's Assn.
(ILA), the union for dockers on America's east and southern coasts.
In the film, a government crime commission is investigating the
union, and Marlon Brando entices a worker into an ambush, and leaves.
The union thugs, Brando thinks, are going to “teach the guy” a
lesson, not to testify the next day. Instead of beating the
dissident, the union squad kills him. Brando had been an aspiring
boxer, but his brother, determined to make more money by betting
against Brando, convinced Brando to throw the fight. Brando moaned
lingering resentment to the brother in a car, “I coulda been a
contender.” His brother works for the corrupt union boss. Brando
meets and begins to fall for the sister of the slain docker, Eva
Marie Saint. Karl Malden plays a priest who knows something is wrong
on the docks and presents a terrific sermon on a ship. Brando tells
the priest and Eva about his role in the death of her brother, ups,
downs, another murder, beatings, Brando is shunned when word gets out
he may testify. The priest gets Brando to testify and Eva
reconciles, and though beaten up, Brando returns to work. Kazan said
that this film was his justification for testifying before HUAC.

The
left's hatred of Kazan, whom they deemed an informant, a snitch, a
rat, was on display before a huge television audience. During the
Academy Award telecast of 1999, the Academy presented Kazan with an
Honorary Award, and while many stars in the audience stood and
applauded like Meryl Streep, the legacy of the Left's hatred
continued with some remaining seated, some standing and turning their
backs to show their contempt for the many who would whistle blow on
Communists. Among the dissenters – Nick Nolte, Ed Harris, and Ian
McKellan. Kazan had directed numerous films, A Tree Grows in
Brooklyn, Gentleman's Agreement, Panic in the Streets, Streetcar
Named Desire, East of Eden, Splendor in the Grass, and many more.
Many had received awards. One of the better parts of Billingsley's
book is his contrasting the audiences of the 2 remembrances of the
Blacklist era.

In
the early 1930s the Communist movement was in one of its ultra-left
periods, when it could have no alliance with Social Democrats because
they were “social fascists,” and liberals were imperialists and
defenders of oppression. However, events in Germany would revise the
outlook of the Comintern. Assuming the appointment of Hitler as
Germany's Chancellor in January 1933 would be short-lived, and the
slogan, “Nach Hitler uns” (after Hitler, us) would be quickly
fulfilled, events did not go as predicted. Following the burning of
the Reichstag, Hitler was granted extra powers; he banned the
powerful Communist party, organized concentration camps for
dissidents, forced all unions into the Nazi approved organization,
restricted the media, and prepared for rearmament. Stalin, viewing
Germany as a potential threat, began a new policy for the Comintern,
- to woo liberals; work together in the “popular front” against
fascism and Nazism.

As
part of the new Party strategy, the CP established the Hollywood
Anti-Nazi League (HANL) in 1936. Billingsley describes its success
in organizing rallies, relief efforts, producing radio programs, to
expose the oppression of Hitler's regime. The HANL rallied
protestors to condemn the leader of the Italian film industry when he
visited Hollywood. This film chief happened to be Vittorio, the son
of Benito Mussolini. The HANL also did what it could to demonize and
blacklist (p. 70) another visitor, who was probably the most
innovative woman in films in the 20th century. Her
Olympic film is unsurpassed. But Leni Riefenstahl was a friend of
Hitler, and arriving soon after the anti-Jewish violence of
Kristalnacht, Riefenstahl's reception in Hollywood was less than
spectacular. The HANL led protests against her.

Billingsley
exposes the about faces of the American CP. Though CP leader Earl
Browder scoffed at foolish reports in summer of 1939 that Stalin
would make a deal with Hitler, after the deal was made, Browder
quickly justified it. The CPUSA was no longer interested in
anti-fascism, but anti-imperialism; the main enemies of the world's
working class were no longer Hitler, but colonial and imperial
nations like Britain, France, Belgium, etc. Although the HANL group
had been extremely successful, even working with the local archbishop
and with Jewish religious leaders, anti-fascism was now a hindrance.
Stalin and Hitler were friends. So the Communist dominated HANL
disbanded and elements were reprogrammed as the local chapter of the
American Peace Mobilization, meant to prevent re-armament, and to
prevent American from entering into any war on behalf of Britain or
France. Because of Pres. Roosevelt's moves to aid Britain and entice
the US into war, members of the APM picketed the White House with
signs: “The Yanks Are Not Coming!”

During
this period of German and Soviet non-aggression, there was
considerable trade between the two powers. Many raw materials were
shipped to Germany, which because of the British navy, could not be
easily obtained elsewhere. The former foes sought to get along.
After the fall of Belgium, for a time, the only legal political party
in the small, German occupied nation was the Communist party.
Billingsley reports: “During the Nazi-Soviet Pact the Communist
Party was determined to prevent the United States from arming itself
or its allies and it spearheaded strikes at defense
industries,...(80) Yet Hollywood responded in a very biased way to
the two tyrannies redrawing the map of Europe. Hollywood soon
produced films about Nazi spies in the US and Nazi oppression abroad.
The 1940 Hitchcock spy-thriller, “Foreign Correspondent” would
win an Academy Award in 1941. There were also films dramatizing Nazi
spies inside the US. But even during the Nazi-Soviet Pact era,
Hollywood did not produce films showing Communist spies in the US.
Nor were there any exposing the police-state tyranny that was the
USSR. We have often heard that Hollywood is a dream factory.
However, more important, it is our memory manufacturer. We may
recall pictures in our minds from a newsreels or documentaries, but
more likely, we will recall the incident with an image from a film
that rouses our emotions, connecting that incident to us in the movie
theater. So we recall, the Nazi spies of that era, both here and
abroad. But there were no films made about the Soviet spies, and the
far more influential Soviet agents of influence. There were a number
of best-selling books in this era describing Communist spies; but
none were transformed into films. The Trumbo crowd prevented such
exposes of Communist perfidy. So, there are holes in our nation's
memory, because those films were not made to remind us of important
aspects to American history. (See Diana West's American Betrayal
for her insights into this topic.)

In
June 1941 Hitler attacked the USSR. The Comintern policy changed
again. Now the CPUSA wanted the US to enter the war to help Stalin's
domain. The American Peace Mobilization was suddenly the American
People's Mobilization, and now the White House picketers demanded
that Yanks be dispatched to Europe! In June 1941 the CP began to
sound like other liberals – America should prepare for war and help
those already fighting against the Nazi menace. The CP writers could
now write war pictures, glorifying those who fought against Nazi
oppression. And after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the US
was officially in the war.

The
Roosevelt Administration asked Hollywood for films promoting the
Allied cause, and for some sympathetic to the USSR. Several such
films were produced, the most famous based upon the diaries of Joseph
Davies, Roosevelt's Ambassador to the USSR. “Mission to Moscow.”
justified Stalin's attack on Finland in 1939, and it accepted the
Stalinist view of the famous show trials in Moscow that old-time
Party leaders, and leaders of the Soviet military, were German spies
and Trotskyists. Billingsley includes the quip that the film might
better have been titled, “Submission to Moscow.” “North Star”
begins with everyone happily enjoying life on a collective farm with
no scarcity in the USSR - until the barbarous German sneak attack of
1941.(89) These films were the exceptions, however, for most of the
Hollywood glorified the American war effort, and Communists were
doing their part in writing or acting to promote an Allied victory
over fascism.

There
are revisionist historians who argue that both the US and the USSR
are responsible for the Cold War, or that the fault lies mainly with
the United States. However, we may gain some insight into the
origins by reading Billingsley's book. The Soviets controlled the
CPUSA, and when in the 1920s the American leaders opposed Stalin's
policies, those leaders were quickly removed from office and the
Party. As the war in Europe wound down, Jacques Duclos, leader of
the French CP wrote an article, undoubtedly at Stalin's behest,
criticizing Earl Browder's leadership of the CPUSA. Browder had
assumed the close friendly relations between the US and the USSR
would continue after the war. Duclos warned that with the oncoming
defeat of fascism, the US might take up its mantle; by contrast, the
class struggle and the struggle to free colonial peoples would
continue under the banner of socialism. When leaders of the American
Party realized that Duclos was speaking for Stalin, Browder was
expelled from the CPUSA, and a hard-liner, William Z. Foster replaced
him.

Even
before V-E Day and V-J Day, while war in the Pacific still continued,
with the possible loss of millions of lives if the US would have to
invade the Japanese home islands, in spring 1945 the Communists
launched their effort to take control of the film industry.
Hollywood was a dream factory, but Communists emphasized the factory
and union workers aspect of the reality. Although there had been a
no-strike pledge during the war, and though the war was still a very
hot one in the Pacific with no end in sight, the Communist unions
initiated labor disputes and jurisdictional conflicts with
non-communist unions. On 12 March 1945 began the “Great Studio
Strike,” (p. 93, 106) in which the Communist-led Conference of
Studio Unions (CSU) took on the International Alliance of Theatrical
Stage Employees (IA). Herbert Sorrell led the CSU, while Roy Brewer,
a “New Dealer with socialist leanings,” headed the IA. Sorrell
could count on the help of a fellow Communist, (though kept secret at
the time to avoid deportation) of Harry Bridges, leader of the West
Coast dockers' union, the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen
Union (ILWU). At times during this strike, Bridges provided Sorrell
with muscle to insure that the CSU could win some of the picket
battles. Also important for the CSU, a secret Communist was on
officer of the National Labor Relations Board, so his rulings at time
could sway things in favor of the CSU.

Sometimes
there was considerable violence on the picket lines, and the CSU
promised to boycott actors who crossed the lines. Despite the
threats, John Wayne, Lucille Ball, Clark Gable, Bette Davis, Humphrey
Bogart, Maureen O'Hara, and others all crossed the Red-led picket
lines.(121) There was violence, but the stakes were high. If the
Communists could control the Hollywood unions, they could exert
enormous pressure to prevent the making of any “reactionary”
films, while promoting “progressive” films and insertions of
propaganda into general films. Billingsley spends considerable pages
on this important strike, but the times were against the CP. When
Congress began its investigation of Communism in Hollywood,
initially, there was considerable push-back. But when the liberals
began to realize that the accused probably were members of the CP,
some like Bogart simply felt “used” by the radical groups
pretending to be liberals.

The
Communists lost the strike, and suffered from the Blacklist. Their
hope to control the film industry through their unions failed. But
50 years later, when Hollywood Remembered the Blacklist, the CP
stalwarts felt vindicated. When many in another audience
disrespected Elia Kazan when he received another award, the CP may
have assume it had won the battle in the long run.

Some
aspects of Communist activities in Hollywood are unexplored in
Billingsley's book. And some of these may have actually been
beneficial to America. Others, for example, the films that were not
made because the Communists vetoed them, blacklisting ideas deemed
anti-Soviet, probably distorted America's national memory of the era.
The Communists supported Stalin's expansion in Eastern Europe,
Communist expansion in Asia, and anti-colonial movements in Africa.
The American CP was subsidized by Moscow, and some members were more
interested in advancing Soviet interests rather than America's. I
think Kazan and others did the proper thing to name names of the
Communists before the HUAC. The Blacklisted suffered, but
ultimately, their suffering was on behalf of a cause that was
murderous and tyrannical.

Saturday, August 11, 2018

Edward
Dutton has written a short but disappointing book arguing that we do
and should judge people by the way they look. The most obvious
deficiency is the book's lack of an index. By omitting the index, it
is more difficult for the reader to cross-check some of Dutton's
seemingly contradictory claims. His bibliography may be useful, but
is no substitute for an index.

There
are typos and deleted words that sometimes make comprehension
difficult to impossible. For example, in one paragraph, “...Dutton
et al...has argued that until the Industrial Revolution were
evolved...::Religiousness, it shows, it about 0.4 genetic.”(p. 73)
On the previous page when discussing friendships of the opposite sex,
Dutton writes, “...when it comes to opposite sex fiends, the
male...”(72) Is this a typo, a Freudian slip, or Dutton's view of
men who seek friendships with women?

Sometimes
it is not the typos but Dutton's condensed, oblique writing that
converts paragraphs into gibberish for the average reader. His
description the meanings of the D2:D4 ratios (69) and how criminal
faces differ from law-abiding folks (53) is murky.

In
a short paragraph, Dutton raises many important issues. “It would
follow that by 2018 almost 90% of the population of England wouldn't
have existed in 1700; when the population was at its maximum for the
agricultural ecology of about 6 million. And this 90% would be the
mutants who would be lower in intelligence, lower in GFP (General
Factor of Personality), and higher in criminality. So it makes sense
that the criminals are more genetically diverse. Genetic diversity
is a reflex of the collapse of Natural Selection.”(54) What Dutton
ignores is the huge amount of immigration to England in recent
decades by people from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Hong Kong,
British West Indies, etc., and more recently immigrants from EU
countries and beyond. Most of these immigrants – in the millions,
have nothing to do genetically with the inhabitants of England of
1700. Beyond that, his argument is also suspect – that living
standards rose slowly as did the height and intelligence of the
people, geniuses developed new scientific and medical techniques
improving the general health and welfare. In 1800 the child
mortality rate was about 40%; around 1900, 10%; and today, 1%. The
more likely child deaths of the past – the mutants, now survive
instead. The mutants generally have lower intelligence and higher
rates of criminality.(54, 74) But is this true?

However,
in Dutton's presentation, this may not be a problem at all. “...the
smarter you are the stronger will be your attraction to evolutionary
mismatch...” and thus “in the modern societies, intelligence is
effectively maladptation.”(68)

Dutton
cites studies to buttress his argument throughout his book, but the
number of people cited in each of the studies varies considerably.
Thus, a study on p. 28 had a sample of 84; on 38, 20; on 41, 144 and
95; on 46, eight thousand; on 51, one thousand, six hundred sixty.
How valid are studies with tiny samples?

Dutton
avoids the politically correct attack on common sense that posits
that race is simply a social construct. He observes 3 major races
that have distinguishing characteristics, though not for each member
of the group.

On
one area his findings differ from those I read of years ago – left
handedness. Dutton argues that a few lefties may be above average in
intelligence in narrow fields like math, but overall, they are
generally less intelligent than righties. Furthermore, lefties are
less mentally stable and more prone to sexual deviancy.(70-71) I
find it especially interesting in that to call someone “left
handed” was once a euphemism for calling them homosexual. Is there
a connection, and what might it be?

For
some years I played soccer as a member of the New York Ramblers
soccer club, the world's first openly gay soccer group. I find it
strange that Dutton, a European, never raised the issue of
left-footedness. Almost every male European, indeed, most males
throughout the world will be aware of their footedness, because they
all play football (soccer). Most Americans do not know their
footedness. I played soccer with the Ramblers; I was not there to
collect data as a social scientist. But players might want to play
one position or another depending on if they were more adept with
their right or left foot. Most of our players were right footed.
Most of them were also right handed. I too am strongly right handed
and footed. But there were a few who were left footed and right
handed. At least one said he had been pressured as a child to become
right handed. Today, discussing the issue with a dental student from
India, as she was about to pull one of my teeth, said she was left
footed, but as a child, she too had been pushed to become right
handed. Back to the soccer team – some said they were not
pressured, they were left footed and right handed. And there ere a
few who were right footed and left handed. Presumably, no one would
have pressured them to become left handed. Since often the
handedness of the individual is an indication of the organization of
that person's brain, handedness can be quite important. But does
anyone consider footedness? Does this indicate a special brain
organization?

I
also taught at a university in China. I don't recall with certainty
now, but I think there were no desks for left handers in all my class
rooms (it is possible my memory is faulty, but if there were none,
then only a very few). I don't recall any left-handed students
there. Is it genetic or social pressure that seemed to produce an
absence of left handers?

Dutton
provides a short definition of intelligence – the ability to solve
problems fast.(57) He places creativity as a subdivision of
intelligence; I suspect this is incorrect. When discussing
homosexuals and intelligence, Dutton thinks the more openness of gays
to “strange or unusual ways of thinking,” will make them better
at problem solving. I suspect that gays, Jews, and other minorities
are more likely to think outside the box, and be more creative. But
is this really a subdivision of intelligence?

Dutton
informs us that larger pupil size indicates a higher IQ.(56) If I
take drugs that increase the size of my pupils, will I become more
intelligent? Certainly, many writers and artists have taken drugs
and appear to believe it enhanced their creativity.

“On
average, better-looking people are more intelligent.”(65) Yet,
elsewhere Dutton asserts that in general women with large breasts and
men who are noticeably muscular are less intelligent than the lesser
physically endowed men and women. (He contrasts the K strategy, fast
track people with the r-strategy, slower, more nerdy types)(40-44)
However, many would deem the large breasted women and muscular men as
more attractive. Contradictions.

Overall,
Dutton's book is too condensed, seemingly full of contradictions and
undeveloped theses. He does make one valid point – if we are
pressed for time to catch a plane, which passerby will we ask for
information? The unshaven man who smells like he has not washed for
days and may be homeless? Or the man dressed as if he's about to
attend a business luncheon? At that moment we will judge and act,
our decisions based upon the person's appearance.